Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip M. Epstein


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Philip M. Epstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't pass GNG, or NPROF (has published a few papers and reports, not sufficient). Sources in the article are either not independent of the subject, interviews with the subject, non-RS, passing mentions of the subject, or do not mention the subject at all. BEFORE doesn't show significant coverage (note that much of the coverage of the subject is without the middle initial - "Philip Epstein" - and that there is a more notable Philip G. Epstein of Casablanca fame that that you need to filter out of searches). Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Not entirely convinced of Queen's Counsel from 1982 (Ontario stopped handing this out in 1985), but it is an indication of professional recognition.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Regarding GNG, speaking as a Canadian lawyer, I can attest that Philip M. Epstein meets the criteria in every way. He has been both influential and widely known and respected. ::I did try to choose references that reflected this. The court decisions I have referenced are precedents that are frequently used in Canada. I used as a template for this page the entry for Edward Greenspan, who was the equivalent to Epstein in the criminal world.
 * Regarding NPROF, I referenced publications that have wide circulation and influence in the Canadian legal community.
 * Regarding the articles, I'm not sure what leaves the impression that they are not independent of Epstein. Great care was taken to ensure that they are completely independent (e.g. no quotes form his web site). Admittedly, there are not major media features on Epstein, but that is a reflection of the media in Canada. It would be a shame if that were to cause the omission from Wikipedia of Epstein who has had a huge influence Canadian family law for several decades. He is a giant in Canadian family law.

Rddavistoronto2 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Queen's counsel  he satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. This honour, which indicates "pre-eminence in the profession", (Final Report of Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd 7648, HMSO, October 1979, volume 1, page 466) is certainly well known and significant. James500 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If he is on the Queen's counsel, I agree, that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  D r e a m Focus  07:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.